Remediation Ability of Melon Grass in A

ISSN: 2454-1907 International Journal of Engineering Technologies and Management Research
June 2020, Vol 7(06), 89 – 101

DOI: https://doi.org/10.29121/ijetmr.v7.i6.2020.527
REMEDIATION ABILITY OF MELON GRASS IN A CRUDE OIL

POLLUTED SOIL IN A TROPICAL REGION
Uwazie M.C. 1, Obijiaku J.C. 2 , Onukwuli O.D. 3, Babayemi A.K 4 , Umeuzuegbu J.C
5
1 Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, Faculty of Agriculture, Adamawa State
University, Mubi
2 Department of Chemical Engineering, Federal University of Technology, Owerri, Nigeria
3 Department of Chemical Engineering, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria
4, 5 Department of Chemical Engineering, Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu University, Uli. Nigeria
DOI: https://doi.org/10.29121/ijetmr.v7.i6.2020.527
Article Citation: Uwazie M.C., ABSTRACT

Obijiaku J.C., Onukwuli O.D., The aim of this research was to study the effectiveness of a chosen
Babayemi A.K, and Umeuzuegbu J.C. grass (plant) in the remediation of soil contaminated by crude oil. Lemon
(2020). REMEDIATION ABILITY OF grass was used in this study to remediate the polluted soil because of its
MELON GRASS IN A CRUDE OIL
perceived ability to do so. Five wooden boxes were fabricated, and 150kg
POLLUTED SOIL IN A TROPICAL
REGION. International Journal of of soil were introduced to each of them. Four of the boxes were
Engineering Technologies and contaminated with different concentrations of crude oil, while two out of
Management Research, 7(6), 89- these four boxes were amended with cow dung. One of the boxes that
101. served as control was neither contaminated nor amended. Lemon seeds
https://doi.org/10.29121/ijetmr.v7 were then planted in all the boxes and allowed to grow for the period of 12
.i6.2020.527 weeks. Analysis were done at the beginning, during and after the plant
growth in order to determine the rate of remediation, with particular
Published Date: 20 June 2020 interest in the TPH (total petroleum hydrocarbon), and few other heavy
metals; copper, magnesium, aluminum. Two concentrations of
Keywords:
contamination were artificially made (75g and 150g). The TPH, Pb, Zn and
Phytoremediation
Melon Grass Ni contents of the 75g crude oil contaminated soil were 6.784µg/g,
Crude Oil Polluted Soil 0.485mg/kg, 0.867mg/kg and 0.030mg/kg respectively. It reduced to
Physic-Chemical 6.356µg/g, 0.058mg/kg, 0.560mg/kg and 0.043mg/kg respectively after
Heavy Metals remediation. The TPHPb, Zn and Nicontents of the 150g crude oil
contaminated soil were 9.109µg/g, 0.699mg/kg, 0.851mg/kg and
0.032mg/kg respectively. It reduced 7.713µg/g, 0.059mg/kg, 0.506mg/kg
and 0.057mg/kg respectively after remediation. An interesting
observation was that, amending the contaminated soil with cow dung gave
a favourable result in remediating the contaminants. It took about
80months to remediate TPH to an acceptable level of 0.013µg/g, but over
150months to do the same for an unamended soil. This finding can be
applicable in the estimation of time requirement for the remediation of
crude oil polluted soil by concerned stake holders.
© 2020 The Author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution,
and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. 89
Remediation Ability of Melon Grass in A Crude Oil Polluted Soil in A Tropical Region
1. INTRODUCTION
Finding solutions to oil polluted sites (soil) has always been the subject of several studies (Leahy and Colwell,
1990). A wide range of remediation measures have been preferred with the aim of offering solution to the damages
caused by crude oil on nature of the soil and its physiochemical characteristics. Over the decades, the biological
methods of cleaning–up the environment have received much attention. This is because of its potential to reduce,
detoxify and mineralize chemical pollution, restoring chemical balance at low cost. Phytoremediation is
characterized by lots of advantages such as its cost effectiveness, environmental friendliness, simplicity in
technology, conservation of soil texture and properties and its ability to produce harmless end products. This is
contrary to other physical and chemical treatment methods whose limitations include; transfer of pollutants from
one place/phase to another, being a complex technology and expensive to implement at full scale (Vidali, 2001). Due
to the limitations of the physiochemical technologies stated above, great deal of literature has reported that
phytoremediation methods are alternative and/or supplements to these methods.
Phytoremediation is a non-destructive, cost-effective in-situ technology that helps in a great measure to clean-
up contaminated soils. If contamination is caused by petroleum hydrocarbons, plants can enhance microbial
degradation of the contaminant in the rhizosphere. The potential for success of this technology for the tropics is high
due to the prevailing climatic conditions enhancing plant growth and stimulating microbial activity.
Plants can render harmless, extract or stabilize a contaminant in soil, thereby making the contaminant(s)
unavailable for other organisms and reducing environmental hazards. Mechanism of this technology called
phytoremediation depends on the type of contaminant, bioavailability and soil properties.
During phytoremediation of petroleum-contaminated sites, harmful components can be metabolized by plant
enzymes in the plant or in the soil. The mechanism believed to be responsible for most of the degradation of
petroleum hydrocarbons in vegetated soil is the stimulation of growth and activity of degrading micro-organisms in
the rhizophere. Because of root penetration, soil aggregates are loosened and oxygen supply in the soil increases.
Oxygen is a decisive factor for the growth and activity of aerobics soil micro-organism and in the initial degradation
step of a number of chemical compounds such as aromatics. Microbial activity also is enhanced by a number of
substrates provided in the rhizosphere such as plant-derived enzymes, vitamins, hormones and low molecular
carbons sources which promote microbial growth. Having a multiple ramified root system, grasses are mostly
considered to be particularly suitable for phytoremediation because they offer an increased rhizosphere with a
greater room for microbial activity and growth. In the other hand, the roots of legumes usually are not as ramified
but usually reach deeper soil layers than grasses and thus take effect on deeper located contaminants. However, little
is known about tropical species that will give an excellent result in the clean-up of oil contamination. The screening
of plant species for their ability to grow and establish in contaminated soil is one of the first steps in the selection of
species for phytoremediation in the tropics, followed by the evaluation of their influence on the degradation of
petroleum hydrocarbons in soil.
This work selected a legume plant commonly found in abundance in the eastern parts of Nigeria (OwerriWest
of Imo State), for screening for the purpose of phytoremediation in a country like ours where environmental
contamination with petroleum-based products occur frequently.
The seeds of the plant were sown in different culture set ups as well as the control medium. The seedling
emergence were monitored and data collected based on the roots, shoots and leave performance from the first day
to a minimum of 90 days. The data were used to run analysis with the help of some known software. Tables and
graphs were generated and arrayed to ease understanding of the performance of the process.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
MATERIALS
2.1.1. SAMPLE/MATERIAL COLLECTION
The soil sample used for the experiments was collected within Umuanunu Community in Obinze Town located
inOwerri-West L.G.A of Imo State, and the melon seedlings used for the work was also purchased from same locality.
The soil sample was collected from a fertile farmland location of the village communal farm area, with a large nylon
bag and well labeled before being delivered to the laboratory for the laboratory tests.
International Journal of Engineering Technologies and Management Research 90
Uwazie M.C., Obijiaku J.C., Onukwuli O.D., Babayemi A.K, and Umeuzuegbu J.C
2.1.2. SOIL SAMPLE/MATERIAL PREPARATION
The soil sample was superficially dried for two days after which it was further meshed and then sieved through
2mm mesh size. The sieved soil samples were then used for the laboratory analysis.
Thirteen soil sample groups, each weighing 7.5kg were measured out and separated for the experimental
purpose. One of the groups was reserved as the control sample, while the other twelve were further divided into
four groups of three categories, which were all artificially contaminated with petroleum to concentrations of 1
w/w% and 2 w/w%. Again, to the pair of the polluted samples, one of each group were further enriched with organic
manure (cow dung), while the others were not. This was basically to check the effect of enrichment on the polluted
soil, in the phytoremediation of the soil. In all, a total of thirteen soil sample groups (including the control sample)
were prepared for the phytoremediation experiments.
METHODS
2.2.1. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
The phytoremediation study took place from the month of August to October 2017. The treatment was
subdivided into four groups. Each of the treatment groups 1-4 constitutes three (3) replicate treatments. The only
common proportion of all was the petroleum contaminated soil of 7.5kg. The target was to find out how different
levels of contamination and enrichment would affect the degradation of a petroleum contaminated soil. The objective
of the variation in the treatment levels was to investigate the most appropriate quantity of each treatment option
that will give the best remediating result.
The soil set-up/grouping for the remediation study is as follows:

Group B: The three constituent replicates in this group were made up of 7.5kg of soil + 75g of crude oil + 150g
cow dung, each of which were analyzed at intervals of approximately six weeks during the twelve-week study period.
Group C: The three constituent replicates in this group were made up of 7.5kg of soil + 150g of crude oil + 150g
cow dung, each of which were analyzed at intervals of approximately six weeks during the twelve-week remediation
study.
Group D: The three constituent replicates in this group were made up of 7.5kg of soil + 75g of crude oil, each
of which were analyzed at approximately six-week intervals for the period of twelve weeks.
Group E: The three constituent replicates in this group were made up of 7.5kg of soil + 150g of crude oil, each
of which were analyzed at intervals of approximately six weeks for the period of twelve weeks.
It is worthy of mention that several studies have demonstrated the necessity of oxygen in phytoremediation of
oil-contaminated soil, hence all the replicates were supplied with little watering and exposed to oxygen by milled
tilling in order to facilitate degradation.
Table 2.1 shows how the experiment was divided into four treatment groups; each treatment had 7.5kg of soil
plus different proportions (75g or 150g) of crude oil and then either with or without organic manure.
Table 2.1: Experimental design for the phytoremediation study

Options Treatment/enrichment
Group B 7.5kg soil + 75g crude oil + 150g cow dung
Group C 7.5kg soil + 150g crude oil + 150g cow dung
Group D 7.5kg soil + 75g crude oil
Group E 7.5kg soil + 150g crude oil
The experimental layout is shown in Table 2.2 below;

Table 2.2: Experimental Layout
Treatment Groups
Treatment number B C D E
1 (Before planting) SB1 SC1 SD1 SE1
2 (Within planting period) SB2 SC2 SD2 SE2
3 (After planting) SB3 SC3 SD3 SE3
Where:
SB1 - 7.5kg soil + 75g crude oil + 150g cow dung (Before planting)
SB2 - 7.5kg soil + 75g crude oil + 150g cow dung (Within planting period)
SB3 - 7.5kg soil + 75g crude oil + 150g cow dung (After planting)
SC1 - 7.5kg soil + 150g crude oil + 150g cow dung (Before planting)
SC2 - 7.5kg soil + 150g crude oil + 150g cow dung (Within planting period)
SC3 - 7.5kg soil + 150g crude oil + 150g cow dung (After planting)
SD1 - 7.5kg soil + 75g crude oil (Before planting)
SD2 - 7.5kg soil + 75g crude oil (Within planting period)
SD3 - 7.5kg soil + 75g crude oil (After planting)
SE1 - 7.5kg soil + 150g crude oil (Before planting)
SE2 - 7.5kg soil + 150g crude oil (Within planting period)
SE3 - 7.5kg soil + 150g crude oil (After planting)
This research work was conducted for approximately twelve weeks, during which soil and plant samples were
taken to the laboratory for analysis at six weeks interval.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
RESULTS PRESENTATION
Results of the laboratory tests conducted on the soil and plant samples obtainedare presented below:
Table 3.1: Physico-chemical parameters for unpolluted soil sample

S/N Parameter Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average
1 pH 6.92 6.90 6.91 6.91
2 Moisture content, % 1.87 2.54 2.10 2.17
3 Ash content, % 94.02 93.68 94.00 93.90
4 Organic matter, % 5.98 5.47 5.88 5.78
5 TOC, % 1.60 1.70 1.60 1.63
6 TPH, µg/g 0.014 0.010 0.016 0.013
7 Nitrate-Nitrogen, mg/kg NO3-N 11.20 10.94 10.53 10.89
8 Ammonia- Nitrogen, mg/kg NH3-N 3.50 3.39 3.44 3.44
9 Potassium, mg/kg K 40.00 45.00 50.00 45.00
10 Calcium, mg/kg Ca 12.62 12.66 11.30 12.19
11 Nickel, mg/kg Ni 0.15 0.13 0.14 0.14
12 Copper, mg/kg Cu 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.17
13 Zinc, mg/kg Zn 1.57 1.58 1.62 1.60
14 Lead, mg/kg Pb 2.06 2.04 1.83 1.98
Table 3.2: Textural class of unpolluted soil sample

S/N Textural Class Mesh Size (Mm) Soil Size (%)
1 Pebble Stone 4.750 -
3.350 -
2 Very Coarse Sand 1.180 0.61
3 Coarse Sand 1.000 0.87
4 Medium Coarse Sand 0.425 31.44
0.300 18.86
5 Fine Sand 0.212 30.90
0.125 8.96
0.106 2.98
6 Very Fine Sand 0.075 2.13
0.053 0.05
7 Silt < 0.053 3.20
3.1.1. SOIL ANALYSIS BEFORE PLANTING, 18TH AUGUST 2017
Table 3.3: Physico-chemical parameters for polluted soil sample (amended)

S/N Parameter B (7.5kg Soil polluted with 75g crude oil C (7.5kg Soil polluted with 150g crude oil
+ 150g Cow dung) + 150g Cow dung)
B1 B2 B3 Average C1 C2 C3 Average
1 pH 7.07 7.08 7.05 7.07 7.18 7.21 7.22 7.20
2 Moisture content, 15.46 15.40 15.67 15.51 13.84 13.84 13.37 13.68
%
3 Ash content, % 79.02 79.24 80.44 79.57 81.23 82.85 81.85 81.98
4 Organic matter, % 20.98 20.76 19.56 20.43 22.73 24.47 23.75 23.65
5 TOC, % 5.40 5.70 5.60 5.57 5.84 5.93 5.79 5.85
6 TPH, µg/g 6.783 6.785 6.785 6.784 9.394 9.175 8.757 9.109
7 Nitrate-Nitrogen, 12.50 11.86 11.95 12.10 11.95 11.37 11.75 11.69
mg/kg NO3-N
8 Ammonia- 3.90 3.84 3.88 3.87 3.96 3.92 3.91 3.93
Nitrogen, mg/kg
NH3-N
9 Potassium, mg/kg 46.00 47.00 47.00 46.67 44.58 43.74 44.57 44.30
K
10 Calcium, mg/kg Ca 11.56 11.34 11.48 11.46 10.74 11.05 11.17 10.99
11 Nickel, mg/kg Ni 0.029 0.029 0.031 0.030 0.032 0.030 0.034 0.032
12 Copper, mg/kg Cu 3.186 3.218 3.120 3.175 4.947 4.853 4.825 4.875
13 Zinc, mg/kg Zn 0.984 0.823 0.793 0.867 0.904 0.804 0.846 0.851
14 Lead, mg/kg Pb 0.456 0.472 0.512 0.48S 0.674 0.695 0.729 0.699
Table 3.4: Physico-chemical parameters for polluted soil sample (unamended)

S/N Parameter D (7.5kg Soil polluted with 75g crude E (7.5kg Soil polluted with 150g crude
oil) oil)
D1 D2 D3 Average E1 E2 E3 Average
1 pH 7.24 7.28 7.26 7.26 7.43 7.43 7.42 7.43
2 Moisture content, % 14.53 14.41 14.26 14.40 11.16 11.20 11.11 11.16
3 Ash content, % 81.02 81.94 82.34 81.77 84.85 84.90 84.93 84.89
4 Organic matter, % 14.48 13.96 14.26 14.23 15.15 15.10 15.07 15.11
5 TOC, % 6.46 7.17 7.04 6.89 8.03 8.15 9.02 8.40
6 TPH, µg/g 7.247 7.937 7.573 7.59 9.95 10.05 10.12 10.04
7 Nitrate-Nitrogen, mg/kg 11.50 11.47 11.25 14.41 11.22 11.04 11.24 11.17
NO3-N
8 Ammonia- Nitrogen, 3.49 3.72 3.81 3.67 3.74 3.72 3.79 3.75
mg/kg NH3-N
9 Potassium, mg/kg K 45.17 44.63 45.73 45.18 44.26 42.74 43.16 43.39
10 Calcium, mg/kg Ca 11.36 11.28 11.25 11.30 11.27 11.28 11.15 11.23
11 Nickel, mg/kg Ni 0.005 0.003 0.002 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
12 Copper, mg/kg Cu 3.172 3.203 3.120 3.165 0.410 0.408 0.410 0.409
13 Zinc, mg/kg Zn 0.843 0.853 0.786 0.827 0.850 0.854 0.852 0.852
14 Lead, mg/kg Pb 0.346 0.329 0.362 0.436 0.404 0.402 0.398 0.401

3.1.2. SOIL ANALYSIS WITHIN PLANTING PERIOD, 26TH SEPTEMBER 2017

1 pH 6.33 6.37 6.35 6.35 6.55 6.61 6.59 6.58
%
3 Ash content, % 72.53 71.46 72.07 72.02 75.26 74.93 74.48 74.89
4 Organic matter, % 16.46 15.43 15.38 15.76 20.04 21.46 20.92 20.81
5 TOC, % 5.21 5.27 5.18 5.22 5.42 5.38 5.29 5.36
6 TPH, µg/g 6.493 6.515 6.481 6.500 8.419 8.673 8.236 8.443
mg/kg NO3-N
8 Ammonia- 3.66 3.64 3.67 3.66 3.58 3.44 3.51 3.51
Nitrogen, mg/kg
NH3-N
9 Potassium, mg/kg 23.84 25.29 22.22 23.78 18.94 20.17 19.73 19.61
K
10 Calcium, mg/kg Ca 11.13 10.84 10.88 10.95 10.67 11.80 11.72 11.40
11 Nickel, mg/kg Ni 0.025 0.035 0.033 0.031 0.053 0.061 0.057 0.057
12 Copper, mg/kg Cu 1.763 1.484 1.629 1.625 1.903 2.128 2.064 2.032
13 Zinc, mg/kg Zn 0.784 0.693 0.663 0.713 0.746 0.772 0.809 0.776
14 Lead, mg/kg Pb 0.127 0.174 0.211 0.171 0.244 0.219 0.259 0.241

S/N Parameter D (7.5kg Soil polluted with 75g crude E (7.5kg Soil polluted with 150g
oil) crude oil)
1 pH 7.02 6.93 6.87 6.94 7.14 7.19 7.24 7.19
3 Ash content, % 73.83 75.28 72.37 73.83 77.38 74.92 76.35 76.22
4 Organic matter, % 13.83 13.73 12.96 13.51 15.78 15.64 15.47 15.72
5 TOC, % 6.09 5.67 5.95 5.90 7.58 7.30 8.06 7.65
6 TPH, µg/g 6.37 7.47 6.99 6.94 7.89 7.92 8.11 7.97
NO3-N
mg/kg NH3-N
9 Potassium, mg/kg K 18.754 16.947 21.196 18.966 24.67 22.76 19.85 22.43
10 Calcium, mg/kg Ca 10.63 10.46 11.04 10.71 11.02 11.17 11.21 11.13
11 Nickel, mg/kg Ni 0.043 0.051 0.049 0.0477 0.018 0.030 0.026 0.025
12 Copper, mg/kg Cu 1.532 2.572 3.043 2.382 2.462 2.368 3.115 2.648
13 Zinc, mg/kg Zn 0.653 0.715 0.863 0.744 0.780 0.556 0.704 0.680
14 Lead, mg/kg Pb 0.164 0.229 0.172 0.188 0.207 0.184 0.191 0.194

3.1.3. SOIL ANALYSIS AFTER PLANTING, 24TH OCTOBER 2017

1 pH 6.17 6.04 6.11 6.11 6.28 6.24 6.19 6.24
%
3 Ash content, % 69.38 66.84 64.44 66.89 71.37 70.83 71.34 71.18
4 Organic matter, % 16.84 15.74 14.95 15.84 17.37 16.38 15.59 16.45
5 TOC, % 5.18 5.04 4.75 4.99 5.36 5.37 3.49 14.22
6 TPH, µg/g 6.236 6.485 6.356 6.359 7.473 7.483 8.183 7.713
mg/kg NO3-N
8 Ammonia- 3.38 3.43 3.36 3.39 3.18 3.33 3.42 3.31
Nitrogen, mg/kg
NH3-N
9 Potassium, mg/kg 3.379 3.337 3.603 3.440 3.205 3.301 3.395 3.300
K
10 Calcium, mg/kg 10.26 10.73 10.29 10.43 10.00 10.05 10.02 10.02
Ca
11 Nickel, mg/kg Ni 0.043 0.042 0.044 0.043 0.052 0.061 0.058 0.057
12 Copper, mg/kg Cu 0.062 0.060 0.062 0.061 0.066 0.062 0.064 0.064
13 Zinc, mg/kg Zn 0.565 0.568 0.546 0.560 0.502 0.497 0.518 0.506
14 Lead, mg/kg Pb 0.0580 0.058 0.058 0.058 0.0572 0.059 0.062 0.059

S/N Parameter D (7.5kg Soil polluted with 75g crude E (7.5kg Soil polluted with 150g crude
oil) oil)
1 pH 6.58 7.05 6.92 6.85 6.86 6.96 6.94 6.92
3 Ash content, % 65.73 67.03 66.37 66.38 67.03 67.59 68.84 67.82
4 Organic matter, % 14.72 13.82 12.38 13.64 16.94 15.37 15.98 16.10
5 TOC, % 4.72 4.63 4.44 4.60 5.12 5.03 4.95 5.03
6 TPH, µg/g 6.537 6.836 6.756 6.710 6.936 6.904 7.059 6.966
NO3-N
mg/kg NH3-N
9 Potassium, mg/kg K 8.103 7.937 8.073 8.038 12.783 12.750 12.762 12.765
10 Calcium, mg/kg Ca 8.26 9.49 9.92 9.22 9.82 9.38 9.86 9.69
11 Nickel, mg/kg Ni 0.033 0.038 0.037 0.036 0.021 0.021 0.026 0.023
12 Copper, mg/kg Cu 0.483 0.488 0.464 0.478 0.578 0.569 0.581 0.576
13 Zinc, mg/kg Zn 0.483 0.485 0.492 0.487 0.404 0.412 0.382 0.399
14 Lead, mg/kg Pb 0.020 0.027 0.021 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.002

3.1.4. ANALYSIS ON PLANT
Table 3.9: Physico-chemical parameters for control plant

S/N Parameter Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average
1 Moisture content, % 18.44 19.03 18.37 16.61
2 Ash content, % 12.87 11.97 12.06 12.30
3 Organic matter, % 87.68 88.73 87.28 87.91
4 Nitrate-Nitrogen, mg/kg NO3-N 9.47 10.06 10.18 9.90
5 Potassium, mg/kg K 28.46 31.17 29.03 29.55
6 Calcium, mg/kg Ca 16.83 17.08 16.56 16.82
7 Nickel, mg/kg Ni 1.652 1.652 1.652 1.652
8 Mercury, mg/kg Hg 0.988 0.988 0.974 0.983
9 Cadmium, mg/kg Cd 0.072 0.075 0.072 0.073
10 Lead, mg/kg Pb 0.430 0.432 0.430 0.431
Table 3.10: Physico-chemical parameters for plant from polluted soil sample (amended)
S/N PARAMETER Plant from Pot B (7.5kgSoil Plant from Pot C (7.5kg Soil polluted with 150g
polluted with 75g crude oil crude oil + 150g Cow dung)
+150g Cow dung)
2 Ash content, % 15.48 15.37 15.87 15.57 15.89 15.76 15.66 15.77
3 Organic matter, % 78.28 76.38 79.47 78.04 76.93 77.04 77.33 77.10
mg/kg NO3-N
5 Potassium, mg/kg K 15.72 14.93 14.78 15.14 13.93 14.07 13.77 13.92
6 Calcium, mg/kg Ca 11.10 10.92 10.98 11.00 11.07 10.70 10.38 10.72
7 Nickel, mg/kg Ni 1.646 1.603 1.588 1.612 2.188 1.908 1.986 2.027
8 Mercury, mg/kg Hg 1.908 2.007 2.111 2.009 2.807 3.104 3.012 2.974
9 Cadmium, mg/kg Cd 0.016 0.029 0.012 0.019 0.027 0.034 0.022 0.028
10 Lead, mg/kg Pb 3.750 3.738 3.750 3.746 4.081 3.828 3.857 3.922
Table 3.11: Physico-chemical parameters for plant from polluted soil sample (unamended)
S/N PARAMETER Plant from Pot D (7.5kg Soil polluted Plant from Pot E (7.5kg Soil polluted with
with 75g crude oil) 150g crude oil)
2 Ash content, % 15.88 15.29 14.85 15.34 15.64 15.37 15.38 15.46
3 Organic matter, % 75.12 76.64 76.11 75.96 73.84 75.02 74.93 74.60
mg/kg NO3-N
5 Potassium, mg/kg K 13.63 13.85 14.03 13.84 13.22 13.70 13.28 13.40
6 Calcium, mg/kg Ca 12.73 11.70 11.85 12.09 11.07 10.70 10.38 10.72
7 Nickel, mg/kg Ni 1.583 1.701 1.685 1.656 2.328 2.448 2.392 2.389
8 Mercury, mg/kg Hg 2.204 2.187 2.417 2.269 2.811 2.920 3.144 2.958
9 Cadmium, mg/kg Cd 0.022 0.026 0.023 0.024 0.027 0.034 0.022 0.028
10 Lead, mg/kg Pb 3.864 3.868 3.899 3.877 3.998 3.897 4.126 4.007

Day 1
8 16
Day 2
Day 3 Day 1
7 14 Day 2
Day 3
6 12
Moisture content (%)

5 10
pH values
4 8
3 6
2 4
1 2
0
1 2 3 4 0
1 2 3 4
A B C D
B C D E
Figure 3.1: Comparison of pH value for the different Figure 3.2: Comparison of moisture content for the
samples for the three-time period different samples for the three-time period
Day 1
90 25
Day 2
Day 1
Day 3
80 Day 2
Day 3
20
70
60
Organic matter (%)

Ash content (%)
15
50
40
10
30
20 5
10
0 0
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
B C D E A B C D
Figure 3.3: Comparison of ash content for the different Figure 3.4: Comparison of organic matter for the
samples for the three-time period different samples for the three-time period
9 Day 1 12
Day 2 Day 1
Day 3 Day 2
8
Day 3
10
7
6 8
TPH conc. (ug/g)
TOC (%)
5
6
4
3 4
2
2
1
0 0
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
A B C D B C D E
Figure 3.5: Comparison of total organic carbon for the Figure 3.6: Comparison of total petroleum hydro-
different samples for the three-time period carbon for the different samples for the three-time
period

14 Day 1 4 Day 1
Day 2
Day 2
Day 3
Day 3 3.5
12
3
10
Ammonia-Nitrogen (mg/kg)
Nitrate-Nitrogen mg/kg
2.5
8
2
6
1.5
4
1
2 0.5
0 0
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
B C D E B C D E
Figure 3.7: Comparison of nitrate-nitrogen for the Figure 3.8: Comparison of ammonia-nitrogen for
different samples for the three-time period carbon for the different samples for the three-time
period
Day 1
50 Day 1 12
Day 2
Day 2 Day 3
45
Day 3
10
40
35
8
Potassium (mg/kg)
Calcium (mg/kg)
30
25 6
20
4
15
10
2
5
0 0
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
B C D E B C D E
Figure 3.9: Comparison of potassium for the different Figure 3.10: Comparison of calcium for the different
samples for the three-time period samples for the three-time period
0.06 5
Day 1 Day 1
Day 2 4.5 Day 2
0.05 Day 3 Day 3
4
3.5
0.04
Copper (mg/kg)
Nickel (mg/kg)
0.03 2.5
2
0.02
1.5
1
0.01
0.5
0 0
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
B C D E B C D E
Figure 3.11: Comparison of nickel for the different Figure 3.12: Comparison of cupper for the different

0.06 5
Day 1 Day 1
Day 2 4.5 Day 2
0.05 Day 3 Day 3
4
3.5
0.04
Copper (mg/kg)
Nickel (mg/kg)
0.03 2.5
2
0.02
1.5
1
0.01
0.5
0 0
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
B C D E B C D E
Figure 3.13: Comparison of nickel for the different Figure 3.14: Comparison of cupper for the different
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The experimental results obtained for the four soil samples were compared for the three different periods the
samples were monitored for phytoremediation. The results show the different components behavior of the soil at
the intervals for the four samples considered (i.eB, C, D and E).
The result for pH values for the different samples for the varied time periods were collected is shown in Figure
3.1. For all results, there is reduction in the pH value as time progresses. The result showed that the soil becomes
more acidic as time progresses for all sample mixture. For samples B and C, there is an initial huge decrease in the
pH values which is followed by gradual decrease in the values.
In figure 3.2, there is a significant change in the moisture content when cow dung is added for both 75g and
150g contaminated soil. As time progressed, moisture contents of B, C and D decreased continually while E had no
significant change. A huge reduction was seen at the first check for B and D, which follows with a gradual reduction
in the moisture content.
The ash content of the soil as shown in figure 3.3 shows a very little decrease with the addition of cow dung for
both the 75g and 150g crude oil contaminations. All samples showed a progressive decrease in the value of the ash
content with time though the degradation was rapid in soil samples E and D.
The comparison for the different samples for the organic matter is shown in figure 3.4. For soil samples B and
D, the organic matter dropped to a certain level and remained almost constant, though that of B had a very
remarkable drop. C shows a higher value of initial organic matter and a high decrease in the values of the organic
matter with time. E shows a gradual increase in the values of the organic matter with time. Generally, it can be seen
that the addition of cow dung show a significant increase in the value of the organic matter
Percentage TOC values for the four samples are shown in figure 3.5. All samples showed a decrease in the value
of the percentage TOC with time though C, D and E gave a higher decrease after the first-time interval. From the
result gotten, it can clearly be seen that the values of the TOC dropped with the addition of cow dung.
The result for TPH concentration as seen in figure 3.6 gave a decrease in the values of TPH for all samples
considered. The decrease for sample B was very minute as compared to sample D when cow dung was not added,
and similar result was also noticed for C and E. The addition of cow dung reduced the concentration of the TPH in
the soil for both 75g and 150g crude oil contaminations.
Irregular behavior was seen in the values of nitrate-nitrogen for samples D and E as shown in figure 3.7, but a
gradual decrease in the addition of cow dung for B and C. For D and E the values increased for the first time analysis
and dropped for the second time analysis. In general, the addition of cow dung increased the values of the nitrate-
nitrogen.
For the ammonia-nitrogen value as shown in Figure 3.8, there was a decrease in their values with time.
Generally, there is a significant increase in the values of ammonia-nitrogen with the addition of cow dung.
There was a very high decrease in the potassium content of the soil with time, most especially with the addition
of cow dung, as seen in Figure 3.9. There was no significant change in the initial values of the potassium with the
addition of cow dung.

The calcium values as shown in Figure 3.10 showed a decrease in calcium part from the value for sample B,
which gave an increase in the first-time check and a decrease afterwards. Generally, there was no significant change
in the value of calcium with the addition of cow dung.
Looking at Figure 3.11, there was a very significant increase in the value of nickel with the addition of cow dung,
especially for the 150g contaminated soil with crude oil as seen in sample C. Sample B showed a little increase in the
value of nickel and a notable increase afterwards, while C gave a very significant increase in the first-time check and
constant afterwards. The same behavior was seen in D and E where there is an increment in the first-time check and
decrease afterwards.
The copper values as seen in figure 3.12 showed a decrease in the values with time apart from E sample which
gave an increase in the first-time check and a decrease afterwards. There is no significant change in the initial value
of the sample with addition of cow dung for 75g contaminated soil with crude oil, but a very significant increase
when cow dung was added to 150g contaminated soil with crude oil.
For the values of zinc, figure 3.13 shows that there was no significant change for the initial values when cow
dung is added to the 150g crude oil contaminated soil. There was decrease in the zinc content of soil samples as time
progressed for all samples considered.
4. CONCLUSSION
The technology for phytoremediation that was employed in this study is a simple, effective, inexpensive and
environmentally friendly approach, whose bio-stimulant is readily available, cheap and is compatible with the
environment.
These observations indicate that the cow dung (animal source waste) used significantly enhanced
phytodegradation in soil. Similar observations have been reported for the use of plant and animal-derived organic
waste in the bioremediation of soil contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons. Liu et al. (2009) used organic
manure made up of rice straw and pig dung to bio-stimulate the degradation of an oily sludge and obtained a TPH
reduction of 58.2% in a remediation period of 360 days, while Agarry et al. (2013) in their investigation on kinetic
model and half-life study of Bonny light crude oil amended with crop residue and animal derived organic manure
confirms that the use of crop residue and animal derived organic manure improved the rate of biodegradation of
hydrocarbon in a crude oil contaminated soil.
SOURCES OF FUNDING
None.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
None.
REFERENCES
[1] Abioye, P.O., Abdul-Aziz A. & Agamuthu, P. (2009). Enhanced biodegradation of used engine oil in soil
amended with organic wastes. Water Air Soil Poll., 209 (1): (173-179).
[2] Agarry, S.E. &Lukuman, J.A. (2013). Application of Carbon-Nitrogen Supplementation from Plant and Animal
Sources in In-situSoil Bioremediation of Diesel Oil: Experimental Analysis and Kinetic Modeling; Journal of
Environment and Earth Science; Vol. 3, No.7.
[3] Agarry, S.E., Aremu, M.O. &Aworanti O.A. (2013). Kinetic modelling and half- life study on enhanced soil
bioremediation of bonny light crude oil amended with crop andanimal-derived organic waste. J Pet Environ
Biotechnol 4: 137.

[4] Ana, O.E. (2000). Remediation potential of petroleum refinery waste contaminated land at AlesaEleme, Rivers
State. M.Eng Thesis: University of Port Harcourt.
[5] Aronson, D., Boethling, R. & Howard P. (2000). Estimating biodegradation half-lives for use in chemical
screening. Chemosphere.63: 1953-1960.
[6] Ayotamuno, M.J., Kogbara R.B.&Probert S.D. (2005). Bioremediation of a crude oil polluted agricultural soil at
Port-Harcourt, Nigeria. School of Engineering Cranfield University, Bedfordshire, UK.
[7] Choronn, M. (2010). Bioremedition of crude oil pollutted soil by the application of fertilizers. Iran J Environ
Health SciEng 7:319-326.
[8] Cunningham, C.J. & Philip, J.C. (2000). Comparison of Biostimulation in ex-situ Treatment of Diesel
Contaminated Soil,
[9] Dadrasania, B.N. (2013). The potential use of biowaste (potato skin, soy cake, cow dung) to remediate a diesel
fuel contamianated soil, Science Publishers Inc. pp.34-39.
[10] Ebere, J.U., Wokoma, E.C., Wokocha, C.C. (2011). Enhanced remediation of a hydrocarbon polluted soil,
Research journal of environment and earth science.
[11] Ijah, J. &Antal, S.P. (2003). The Potential Use of Poultry drop microorganisms for all Spill Remediation. Environ
2389-95.
[12] Ikhajiagbe, B. &Anoliefo, G.O. (2011). Natural attenuation of a 14-month-old waste engine oil polluted soil. J
Soil Sci Environ Manage 2: 184-192.
[13] Leahy, J.G. & Crowell, R. R. (1990). Microbial Degradation of Hydrocarbons in theEnvironment.
Microbio.Rev. 3, 305.
[14] Liu, P.G., Tsung, C.C., Liang-Ming, W., Chun-Hsuan, K., Po-Tseng, P. & Sheng-Maletic, S. (2009). Degradation
kinetics of an aged hydrocarbon contaminated soil. Water Air Soil Poll 202:149-159.
[15] Morel, J.L., Echevarria, G. &Goncharova, N. (Eds.) (2002). Phytoremediation of Metal-Contaminated Soils, IOS
Press, Amsterdam, and Springer in conjunction with the NATO Public Diplomacy Division - Springer.
[16] Okieimen, C.O. &Okiemen, F.E. (2005). Bioremediation of crude polluted soil-effect of poultry droppings and
natural rubber processing sludge application on biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbon. Environ Sci.12:1-
8.
[17] Okolo, J.C., Amadi, E.N. &Odu,T.I. (2005). Effects of Soil Treatments using animalmanure on Crude Oil
contaminated sandy-loam soil. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 47-53.
[18] Onifade, A. K. (2007). Bioremediation of Crude Oil Polluted Soil in the Niger-Delta Area of Nigeria Using
Enhanced Natural Attenuation. Res. J. Appal. Sci. 2498-504.
[19] Osoka, E.C.&Onyelucheya,O.E. (2011). Data-Driven Model for Palm Bunch Ash-Enhanced Bioremediation of a
crude oil contaminated soil, 362-363.
[20] Oyoh, K.B &Osoka, E.C. (2002). Rate Model for Bioremediation Based on Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon
Content, Journal of Nigerian Society of Chemical Engineers, 22 (2007),50-56.
[21] Parales, R.E., Bruce, C.N., Schmid, A. &Wackett, L. P. (2003). Biodegradation, biotransformation, and
biocatalysis (B3). Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 68(10), 4699–4709.
[22] Vidali, M. (2001). Bioremediation: An overview. J. Appl. Chemistry, 73(7), 1163–1172.
[23] Zahed, M.A. (2011). Kinetic modeling and half-life study on bioremediation of crude oil dispersed by corexit
9500. J Hazard Mater 185:1027-1031.

Remediation Ability of Melon Grass in A

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Remediation Ability of Melon Grass in A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ISSN: 2454-1907 International Journal of Engineering Technologies and Management Research

June 2020, Vol 7(06), 89 – 101

REMEDIATION ABILITY OF MELON GRASS IN A CRUDE OIL

1 Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, Faculty of Agriculture, Adamawa State

3 Department of Chemical Engineering, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria

4, 5 Department of Chemical Engineering, Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu University, Uli. Nigeria

Article Citation: Uwazie M.C., ABSTRACT

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1.1. SAMPLE/MATERIAL COLLECTION

2.2.1. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

The soil set-up/grouping for the remediation study is as follows:

Table 2.1: Experimental design for the phytoremediation study

The experimental layout is shown in Table 2.2 below;

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 3.1: Physico-chemical parameters for unpolluted soil sample

Table 3.2: Textural class of unpolluted soil sample

3.1.1. SOIL ANALYSIS BEFORE PLANTING, 18TH AUGUST 2017

Table 3.3: Physico-chemical parameters for polluted soil sample (amended)

Table 3.4: Physico-chemical parameters for polluted soil sample (unamended)

International Journal of Engineering Technologies and Management Research 93

Table 3.5: Physico-chemical parameters for polluted soil sample (amended)

Table 3.6: Physico-chemical parameters for polluted soil sample (unamended)

International Journal of Engineering Technologies and Management Research 94

Table 3.7: Physico-chemical parameters for polluted soil sample (amended)

Table 3.8: Physico-chemical parameters for polluted soil sample (unamended)

International Journal of Engineering Technologies and Management Research 95

Table 3.9: Physico-chemical parameters for control plant

International Journal of Engineering Technologies and Management Research 96

Moisture content (%)

Organic matter (%)

International Journal of Engineering Technologies and Management Research 97

International Journal of Engineering Technologies and Management Research 98

International Journal of Engineering Technologies and Management Research 99

International Journal of Engineering Technologies and Management Research 100

International Journal of Engineering Technologies and Management Research 101

You might also like